Juggling
the conflicting claims of two nations for the same piece of land is a major
challenge. All existing proposals for peace between Jews and Palestinians leave
one side or the other feeling shortchanged with respect to the land and its
resources. This proposal, called Parity for Peace, starts by asking what people
in each nation want and then seeks to meet as many of these wants as possible
in the fairest possible way.

1. “Proposal” here does not mean an official offer but an
idea for a solution.

2. This proposal stretches the conventional notion of
statehood; it is out of the box.

3.
This proposal distinguishes between Israelis and Jews because 20 percent of
Israeli citizens are of Arab (Palestinian) ethnicity and some of their
interests are not the same as those of Jews. Furthermore, Israel
is designed to serve the interests of Diaspora Jews as well as those who have
Israeli citizenship.

5. “Mandate Palestine” refers
to the geographic area called “Palestine” during
the British mandate, that is, land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan
River.

6. “Palestine”
in this proposal refers to the state that is envisioned for the Palestinians.

1. Jews would soon be outnumbered by Palestinians and would
thus lose control over their destiny in a democratic state.

2. Jews would no longer have a Jewish state.

Transfer of Palestinians to a state to be carved out
of one or more Arab states:

1. No Arab state has offered land to the Palestinians, nor
is one likely to do so.

2. Palestinians do not want their state to be outside the
territory in which their forefathers lived for many generations.

3. Forcing millions of Palestinians to move would be
extremely expensive and traumatic.

4. Many in the international community would consider the
wholesale, forced transfer of Palestinians to be morally unacceptable (in contrast
to the transfer of settlers out of land the settlers knew from the beginning
was in dispute).

Two states, with enforcement of UN resolutions:

1. If all refugees who wanted to return were allowed to do
so, it would upset the demographic balance in Israel,
and Israel
could not then be both democratic and Jewish.

2. If Jews were required to withdraw to the pre-1967 border,
they would lose control over the heart of their ancient kingdom, with its
historical and religious associations.

3. If Jews were to withdraw to the pre-1967 border, Israel
would be vulnerable to attack, both along the Green Line and from the hills
overlooking Jerusalem.

4. Relocating settlers would be very expensive and
traumatic.

5. Palestinians would be left with 22 percent of the land
they once thought of as theirs; the division would seem unfair.

6. Israel
would lose control of the aquifer and of fertile land along the Jordan
River.

7. Israeli Palestinians would continue to live in a Jewish
state in which they are second-class citizens because they are not Jews.

Two states along the lines of the Geneva
Accord (an unofficial peace plan):

1. Palestinians could return to Israel
only in token numbers, thus being unable to exercise fully their right of
return.

2. Jews would be giving up the heart of their ancient
kingdom, with its historical and religious associations.

3. Israel
would lose control over part of the aquifer.

4. Relocating settlers would be very expensive and
traumatic.

5. Palestinians would not have full control over their borders
or airspace.

6. Palestinians would have only 22 percent of Mandate
Palestine; the division would seem unfair.

7. Palestinians would be asked to trade fertile land for
desert on a 1:1 basis.

8. Israelis of Palestinian ethnicity would continue to live
in a Jewish state in which they are second-class citizens because they are not
Jews.

Two states as apparently envisioned by the Israeli
government:

1. Palestinians would be left with an even smaller fraction of
Mandate Palestine (10–15 percent instead of 22 percent), making the division of
land seem extremely unfair.

2. The Palestinian “state” would likely not be viable: (a)
There would be insufficient land to absorb refugees. (b) Palestine
would be dependent on Israel
for water (Israel
would control the aquifer) and electricity (which would also be true of other
two-state plans), both of which could be cut off or rationed at will. (c)
Palestine’s borders would be controlled by Israel,
making it difficult to conduct commerce and affecting Palestinians’ ability to
enter or leave their country at will. (d) Palestine’s
airspace would be controlled by Israel,
subjecting the population to sonic booms, at Israel’s
discretion. (e) Palestine’s electromagnetic
waves would be controlled by Israel,
enabling Israel
to regulate or cut off Palestinians’ communication with the outside world. (f)
Demilitarization would mean that Palestinians would be unable to defend
themselves if attacked. (g) Movement between different parts of Palestine
would be by very narrow corridors (roads), which could be cut off at will by
the Israelis, impeding the free flow of commerce. (h) Because Israel
has expropriated the best farmland, because so much Palestinian infrastructure
(farmland, orchards, commercial enterprises, housing) has been destroyed, and
because Jerusalem and its associated jobs
(including jobs in the tourism industry) would belong to Israel,
it would be difficult for Palestinians to make a living.

3. Because of Palestine’s
small size, and because movement to, from, and within Palestine
would be controlled—or could easily be controlled—by Israel,
Palestinians are likely to feel imprisoned and harassed.

4. The Palestinian claim to a right of return would be met,
if at all, in only a token way, leaving many Palestinians unsatisfied.

5. Israelis who live on the Palestinian side of the Wall or
Fence would feel isolated and vulnerable; the same would be true of
Palestinians living on the Israeli side.

6. Moving settlers from Palestine
to Israel
proper would be very expensive and traumatic.

7. Jews who feel that God has given all of Mandate Palestine
(“the Land of Israel”)
to the Jews as a birthright would feel bereft.

8. Palestinians who feel that God has given all of Mandate
Palestine to the Arabs would feel bereft.

9. Israelis of Palestinian ethnicity would continue to live
in a Jewish state in which they are second-class citizens because they are not
Jews.

In
sum: Implementing existing proposals would leave major groups dissatisfied. The
conflict would remain unresolved, and violence would likely continue.

(1) Two states on the same land: The
psychological and practical benefits to each nation of being able to claim the whole
of Mandate Palestine for its state are tremendous. Jews and Palestinians could
now rejoice in what they have rather
than lament over what they have lost or are about to lose. Because the
boundaries of each state would be internationally recognized as going from the
Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan
River, Jews and Palestinians could now settle anywhere, subject to
nondiscriminatory land laws agreed to between the states. Jews could retain the
heartland of their historic kingdom, and Palestinian refugees could reestablish
themselves in or near their former homes. Jerusalem could be the undivided
capital of both states. Three of the biggest obstacles to peace would thus be
removed.

Each state could express its nationalism through the usual
trappings: flag, anthem, holidays, the issuance of passports, and so on. Jews
could call the whole place Israel
and sing “Hatikva.” Palestinians could call the whole place Palestine
and sing their own national anthem. No longer would Israel’s
Arab citizens of Palestinian ethnicity have to sing “Hatikva”: they would now
be citizens of Palestine
and have a national anthem they could identify with.

Each state would have a legislature, a head of state and a
head of government (or a single position combining both) and representation in
the United Nations. The legislature of each state could pass laws where
uniformity with the other state is not required, such as laws on marriage.
Within narrow areas, people might even be able to choose between sets of laws.
In Israel
today, people can choose to be tried under Jewish religious law or under
secular law. Palestinians could be offered the choice of being tried under
Islamic law or secular law. This possibility might satisfy Islamists.

Upon reaching voting age, children of mixed marriages could
choose which state they wanted to belong to.

(2) Bilateral ­(50-50) governance in matters of joint
concern: Because of the intermingling of the populations, the two
states would have to agree on laws affecting everyone, for example, laws
regarding traffic, commerce, taxes, natural resources, land use, the
environment, immigration, and government expenditure. To ensure equal
application of the law, executive and judicial branches of the bilateral (as
opposed to state) government would need to be fully integrated, with positions
of power rotated between the states at every level as often as every six
months.

As in other institutions of international governance, for
example, the General Assembly of the United Nations, each state would have
equal power regardless of the size of its population. Each nation would thus
have sufficient power to protect its interests but not enough power to dominate
the other state. Jews would no longer have to worry about demographics. They
would retain enough power to ensure that Israel remained a haven for Jews and a
place where Jews would never again be at the mercy of a government that chose
to discriminate against them. Some mechanism, such as international
arbitration, could be worked out if there were a true deadlock between the two
states, but on the crucial issue of human rights (“Never again!”), it can be
assumed that international arbitration would decide in favor of human rights.

Laws could be passed in one of two ways: the two
legislatures, which would be of equal size, could meet jointly and pass laws
with a majority (or supermajority) vote, or a system could be set up whereby a
bill would have to be passed by both legislatures to become law. The former is
less likely to lead to gridlock.

Although it would be up to the Jews and the Palestinians to
decide how to manage the joint civil and judicial branches of government, the
following is suggested:

At fixed intervals, say, every four years, each state would
select a head of government from a slate of candidates presented by the other
state. This would encourage moderation. The two heads of government chosen
would rotate positions, say, every six months, with the alternate serving as
deputy during the same period.

The two heads of state and the two heads of government would
then select one person from each state for each cabinet position and to head
the judiciary. The two persons chosen would also rotate positions as head and
deputy, and at any one time, there would be equal representation between the
two states in the cabinet. These principles of rotation and equal
representation would apply to all management positions in each section of the
government. Senior-level positions would require approval by the legislatures,
meeting jointly or separately.

Foreign policy would be handled jointly by the two states
because of the need for uniformity in immigration, trade, and matters of war
and peace. Israel would
benefit from the special relationship Palestinians have with the European Union
and the Arab states, and Palestine would benefit
from the special relationship Israel
has with the United States.

To avoid the influence of big money or money from outside
interests, campaigns for elections in both states would be paid for by state
funds.

(3) Equal access by all individuals to resources: This is a
matter of equity and is fundamental to an enduring peace. Water resources have
to be allocated so that each person gets his fair share. Israelis and
Palestinians as individuals would have equal access to state land,
currently 80 to 90 percent of the entire area of Mandate Palestine. Offering
Palestinian refugees state land would help to compensate them for the economic
losses they incurred in 1948 and 1967 and would enable them to reestablish
their villages if the land were still available and they agreed to live in
peace. Peace would free up money for bringing water, sewers, schools, and other
essential services to Palestinian areas.

(4) Management of religious sites to be determined by the
clerics of the religions involved: The clerics know what is involved
to make the sharing of religious sites work and are probably more inclined to
be conciliatory than the politicians are, assuming they are people of the
Spirit. Furthermore, clerics have the ability to make whatever they decide (if
they need to bend some rules) sound as if it were God’s will, thus bringing the
people with them. They are better able to lead in religious matters than the
politicians are; politicians look over their shoulder and try to figure out
what will be tolerated, whereas clerics can set policies and get people to
follow them.

(5) Both Jews and Palestinians to have the right of return
and the right to live in any part of Palestine or Israel subject to nondiscriminatory
land law: Sorting out land claims would be a challenge, one that
would probably require third-party involvement. Not only Palestinians but also
Jews lost property, with some Jews who lost property in their countries of
origin having subsequently acquired the “abandoned” properties of the
Palestinians and perhaps improved them. Compensation from the countries of
origin could be given to these Jews, if they have not already received it, and
the original owners given back their property. In other cases, Palestinian
refugees could be financially compensated and, in addition, be offered several
options: the right of first refusal to buy back their properties when the
properties are put on the market; the opportunity to build on state land
(needless to say, all covenants restricting land to a particular ethnic group
would be have to be removed); or the opportunity to live and work in other
countries either as citizens or as permanent residents with citizenship in
Palestine.

(6) Amnesty for all political and military prisoners who
agree to live in peace:This would
follow the customary practice of releasing prisoners at the end of a war and
would signal a new beginning. A further advantage is that many of the
Palestinian prisoners have learned Hebrew and furthered their education in
prison. These prisoners could be an asset in the bilateral government.

(7) A publicly funded program to heal psychological wounds,
arrive at common understandings, and promote goodwill so that the two nations
can be reconciled: This would entail Living Room Dialogue Groups on a
massive scale, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the pairing of
Palestinian and Jewish families, and a conscious effort to develop skills in
compassionate listening and forgiveness. Such programs already exist, but they
need more funding to make a difference. Both in schools and in society at
large, Palestinians would be taught the Jewish narrative, Jews would be taught
the Palestinian narrative, and every attempt would be made to come up with a
common narrative about the history that has affected both peoples. To
facilitate communication, all schoolchildren and government workers would be
taught Arabic, Hebrew, and English. Language courses would be available to
other adults as well.

This proposal recognizes the rights of both nations to the
land and asks the same concession of each: that each nation give up exclusive
control of the land in exchange for peace. By meeting the key needs of each
nation and coming up with a solution that is fair, the root causes of the
conflict are removed. As a result, Jews and Palestinians can expect a peace
that endures. This proposal also recognizes the current reality: an
intermingling of populations in the West Bank
that makes it exceedingly difficult to have a viable Palestinian state without
moving hundreds of thousands of settlers or leaving them on the “wrong” side.

If key wants for land and self-determination are met on both
sides, there is no need to destroy the other to achieve these wants. Once the
plan is agreed to and implemented, anyone who continues to resist, or who seeks
revenge through killing, can be apprehended and dealt with through the courts.
People are less likely to kill others if there is another mechanism for
settling disputes, which the judicial system provides.

One advantage to an integrated police force and judicial
system is that people who harm and harass other people would be more likely to
be arrested and tried than is now the case: for example, injury and harassment
of Palestinians by settlers is largely ignored by the Israeli police and
military officials; this would not be the case if Palestinians had the power to
arrest them as well.

Taking care of conflicts as they arise would help to keep
them from blowing up into larger conflicts. A publicly funded effort to heal
psychological wounds, arrive at common understandings, and promote goodwill
(the last element of the plan) would help to reduce the hostility that now
exists. Respect for each nation’s sensitivities would have to be a part of the
framework. For example, drawing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed or drawing
swastikas would need to be outlawed from the very beginning.

Agreement to the plan would in itself bring a great feeling
of catharsis among those who feel victimized and would replace despair, which
leads to violence, with hope. If both sides can see steady progress being made
in implementing the plan, the frustrations that have led to violence can be
avoided.

Special care would need to be taken at the beginning to
prevent possible exuberance from descending into lawlessness. The presence of a
large number of trained, nonviolent peace workers could help with conflict
resolution, especially during the transition phase.

2. What is to persuade Israel, which now has the upper hand,
to agree to the terms of this proposal?

Precisely because Israel
now has the upper hand, any willingness on the part of Israel
to come to a truly fair settlement would gain Israel
tremendous respect in the international community. Fairness is a key value in
Judaism, and a policy that embraced this principle would be in line with
Judaism’s teachings to “love the stranger” and to treat the stranger justly.

Israel would
gain by having legitimate, internationally recognized access to all of the Land
of Israel that was in Mandate
Palestine as defined here; Israel
would no longer be regarded as an occupying power: its obligations to the
Palestinians under international law would be met. Working with the
Palestinians as partners in governance would hasten the Palestinians’ skills in
governance, leading to more stability in the region.

Israel
would be safer under this plan than under other two-state solutions. With other
two-state solutions, Israel
will always be worrying about a possible attack from Palestine
and other Arab states. If the borders of Israel
and Palestine are the same, Israel
will have better control over what comes in and what goes out, and other Arab
states will have to think twice about attacking Israel,
because an attack on Israel
would also be an attack on Palestine.
Most important, this plan provides so much of what the Palestinians want, they
will likely have no more incentive to resist. They would have a governmental
mechanism for dealing with their grievances and the incentive to help apprehend
people who were not willing to live in peace. If Palestinians were to accept this
plan, so, surely, would their international supporters, including other Arab
states and Iran.

3. What is to persuade Palestinians, who never agreed to the
Zionist enterprise, to agree to the terms of this proposal?

Israel
is a fait accompli; it is not going away, and a one-person, one-vote unitary
state in all of Mandate Palestine is simply unacceptable to most Jews unless
Arabs are transferred out. More than any other two-state proposal, this
proposal restores what Palestinians lost when Israel
was created: people in both states will now have access to all of what was
Mandate Palestine. This plan is the only plan that provides parity between the
two states in terms of borders and power while treating individuals equally.
Palestinians will gain world esteem by granting Jews the political power they
need to provide a haven against anti-Semitism.

4. How can such a tiny area absorb the return of Palestinian
refugees, especially considering the shortage of water and the Jews’ own need
to have Israel
be a haven for Jewish refugees?

As part of an overall settlement, other countries could
offer citizenship to Palestinian refugees, reducing the number of refugees
returning to Israel/Palestine. Israel
is currently using workers from many different countries. With the end of the
conflict, Palestinians could just as easily fill these positions and the
foreign workers sent home. As stakeholders in Israel/Palestine, Palestinians
might feel motivated to reduce the size of their families, as has happened with
other families around the world when their economic and political conditions
improve.

Israel’s
recruitment of Jews to Israel
for demographic purposes would no longer be necessary, because Israel
would have 50 percent of the power regardless of the size of its population. Israel
could continue to be a haven for Jews who are persecuted, but perhaps only a
temporary haven. The best course of action is to work for human rights for Jews
and other minorities in every country of the world so that there is no need for
a haven. Anti-Semitism arising as a response to Israel’s
policies would be reduced if there were a fair settlement of the
Palestinian-Israeli dispute.

5. Why should power be shared 50-50 instead of
proportionally?

Both the Jews and the Palestinians have experienced
powerlessness, although at different times, and both nations have a strong need
to control their destiny. Parity for Peace enables each nation to have enough
power to protect its interests without fear of domination by the other nation.

Giving each state equal power has precedent in the setup of
the General Assembly of the United Nations. Parity between Palestinians and
Jews as nations was even suggested by some Zionists before the creation of Israel.

6. Aren’t we really talking about a binational state?

The concept of a binational state has changed since some
Zionists first proposed it in the 1920s and early 1930s. Back then, when Jews
were a minority, parity between the Jews and the Palestinians was as an
inherent aspect of the proposal for a binational state. More recently, mention
of a binational state usually assumes a one-person, one-vote arrangement within
a single state. Parity for Peace recognizes the psychological importance to
Jews and Palestinians alike of each nation having a state of their own and does
not call for the destruction of any state that already exists. Allowing each
state separate representation in the United Nations gives each state legitimacy
as a state.

7. Is
there any precedent for shared sovereignty?

Yes, there is. Under international law, two or more states
can formally agree to share sovereignty over a political territory equally
without breaking up the territory into zones. This kind of arrangement is
called a condominium. The MoselleRiver
is a condominium, with Luxembourg
and Germany
sharing sovereignty. Oman
and Ajman share sovereignty over a small part of the Arabian
Peninsula. Other examples exist as well.

Under Parity for Peace, two entire states would form a
condominium. This would be a first, but just because there have never before
been two states with the same borders and bilateral governance does not mean
that this political framework could not be instituted. The conflicting and
legitimate demands posed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are unique and
call for a unique response.

All human institutions arise to meet a need. When the
thirteen colonies in America
broke away from England
and established themselves as states, they first tried working together as a
confederation. They soon found that they needed a stronger union. Thus the
federal system was born—which involved making compromises over sovereignty.
Such compromises are the trend as this world becomes more interconnected.

8. Didn’t the
cartoon controversy (the worldwide Muslim uprising over Danish cartoons of the
Prophet Mohammed) show that nations with different value systems cannot live
and work together?

Both nations will have to show sensitivity to issues that
inflame the other. Some countries have laws against “hate crimes” or
“incitement to violence.” Palestinians and Jews could do the same, specifically
stating what actions will be considered unacceptable. Sensitivity must include
a willingness to hear the other side’s grievances. The cartoon controversy
became a worldwide uprising because Danish officials initially refused to meet
with local Muslims who were upset about the publication of the cartoons.

The Jewish community in Israel
includes people from many different cultures and with very different
interpretations of what it means to be a Jew. Furthermore, 20 percent of the
population of Israel
is Arab, mostly Muslim, and there are, as well, a good many residents from
other countries. Despite all this diversity, society functions.

Historically, Muslims have been relatively tolerant and
hospitable. Before the advent of political Zionism, Jews were treated better in
Muslim countries than in Christian ones, and in pre-Mandate Palestine,
Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived harmoniously.

Justice is an important value for all three religious groups
as well as secularists and can be a unifying principle.

9. What if Jews and Palestinians don’t want to live
together?

They won’t have to. Although forced segregation will not be
allowed, people may naturally choose to live with people of their own
nationality simply because they feel more comfortable being surrounded by their
own kind. If Palestinian communities receive the same services that Jewish
communities do, and if they have the same right to expand that is currently
given to Jewish communities, Palestinians will probably choose to remain in
their own communities or form new Palestinian communities, and Jews can
continue to live in Jewish communities.

10. How
might Parity for Peace be implemented so as to build up confidence in its
workability?

First, both nations must commit to
three interlocking principles of Parity for Peace. These are (1) two states
with identical borders, encompassing all of Mandate Palestine; (2) bilateral,
50-50 governance in all matters of common concern; and (3) equal access by all
individuals to resources. Omit any of these, and the plan will not work. The
first provides the carrot for people whose chief desires are left out of the
two-states-side-by-side solution; often, these are the people who disrupt peace
efforts. The second protects the interests of each nation as a whole. And the
third protects the rights of individuals to their fair share of infrastructure
and resources, because the population of the two states is likely to be
imbalanced.

Commitment to the above principles
should see an immediate reduction in the incentive of Palestinians and Israelis
to commit violence: Palestinians will feel that they have reclaimed their land
and their rights, and settlers will know that they can settle anywhere
(although perhaps not right away, because land laws will need to be worked
out). This reduction in violence will make it easier to do in a humane way what
must be a priority: providing security so that people’s other needs can be met.

Joint Palestinian and Israeli
border patrols should be set up at international border crossings to ensure
that no arms are smuggled in, to ensure that all necessary supplies are allowed
in, and to facilitate commerce. It is suggested that border crossings be manned
primarily by civilians, as done in other countries.

The easiest way to get a uniform
set of laws would be for Israeli law to be extended to Palestinians, but with
all laws discriminating against people of different ethnicity eliminated. The
Israeli secular judicial system could be adopted and modified, if necessary,
and then the courts integrated so that the law can be uniformly applied.

As with other countries, dealing
with internal violence should be a police matter, not a military matter. Joint
Palestinian and Israeli police patrols should be set up so that troublemakers
can be arrested and tried.

An early release of Palestinian
prisoners who agree to live in peace might provide civil service personnel who
are able to converse in both languages.

Ensuring that everyone has equal
access to water should be one of the first tasks of the bilateral government.
As Palestinians see their access to water and other elements of infrastructure
improve, their confidence in the new government will increase, just as the
confidence of Jews will increase as they see their security needs provided for.

The relocation of refugees will need to be phased in, with
citizenship offered to refugees who prefer to stay in other countries.

11. What
if the Palestinians and Israelis commit themselves to Parity for Peace and
after trying it out decide they don’t like it?

Depending on the terms agreed to by both states, Parity for
Peace could be rescinded or modified by a majority (or supermajority vote) of
both the Palestinians and the Israelis, in separate plebiscites conducted on
the same day. If it is rescinded, then an alternative plan would have to be
presented to the voters to vote on during the same election, and this new plan would
have to be agreed to by a majority (or supermajority) of each nation.

12. With
so much fear and hatred between the two peoples, wouldn’t it be better to wait
before trying to share the land and its governance?

Palestinian terrorists believe that if they terrorize the
Jews, they will leave, and the Israeli government believes that if Israel
continues to exert its will, Palestinians will eventually submit or go away.
But the price of holding onto the dream of hegemony and thinking that it can be
achieved by force is not only morally unacceptable in lost lives and human
rights, it is also unsustainable. Violence breeds more violence.

Israelis ask: Why have Palestinians responded to the Gaza
pullout by lobbing rockets at Israel?
Palestinians ask: Why do Jews accuse Arabs of starting the 1967 war, when it
was Israel
that fired the first shot? These questions point to the fact that actions need
not be physically violent to be perceived as violent. Since the withdrawal from
Gaza, Israel
has continued to encroach on Palestinian land in the West
Bank. Palestinians see this encroachment as an act of violence. For
Jews, hateful rhetoric is an act of violence. For peace to occur, all forms of
violence must be dealt with.

Any peace agreement that does not address the Palestinians’
underlying issue of dispossession will leave the Palestinians with the feeling
that the conflict has not been resolved. Yet dealing with this issue, painful
as it may be, is the Jews’ best chance for obtaining the peace, security, and
moral standing that they crave for Israel.

To
move from a constant state of belligerency to a state of peace requires
political will. It will not be easy. It requires a shift in thinking, in which
each nation focuses not only on what it needs and wants, but also on what the
other nation needs and wants. If Palestinians and Israelis cannot do this for
themselves, then other nations must help them, for no other conflict causes
more instability in the world than this one. The world cannot afford to wait
while this conflict continues to drag out, and neither can the Palestinians and
Jews.

Peace requires political will.

Parity for Peace has been suggested by an American woman who
is neither a Jew nor a Palestinian. The proposal is a work in progress, and
this version was posted on August 24, 2009. If you have suggestions, comments,
or queries, please contact the writer-editor of
this site. Attachments will not be opened. For other peace plans, visit www.ApproachesToCoexistence.com.